Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Isn't the empire of Mormon wealth an orgy of elite religious and business figures sitting on all sorts of corporate boards drawing generous salaries?

[_canpakes]

canpakes,

I like that you asked that. It goes to motive. ; )

The answer is, “Yes”.

Ok. Let't get on that too. Where do we disagree?

mikwut

I don't know. Do we disagree on the fact of Trump's nepotism? And if so, what do we need to do about the problem?

... (T)he growing picture of Ivanka Trump’s and Kushner’s time in the White House presents a pretty solid case study in why hiring family can be problematic.

I wrote back when they were elevated to their positions about the problems with hiring family members in positions of power and the reasons anti-nepotism laws exist. One was that family risk being viewed as bulletproof and unfireable. Another was that they are often viewed as being given responsibilities that are not commensurate with their experience. A third was that it muddles the power dynamics that would otherwise be clear thanks to job titles and ranks. And a fourth was that the boss might be tempted to give them special treatment.

Check, check, check and check.

It’s worth noting that these aren’t the first people Trump has apparently struggled to fire; the president who’s catchphrase on “The Apprentice” was “You’re fired” is actually notoriously averse to terminating people. But the reporting suggests it has been particularly tricky in this case — to the point where Trump went to great lengths to obscure his intentions and avoid actually having to fire them. The Times reported last year that, “Mr. Trump has told the couple that they should keep serving in their roles, even as he has privately asked Mr. Kelly for his help in moving them out.” It’s difficult to believe the fact that they’re family doesn’t play into that.

As for being given responsibilities they might not be qualified for, Kushner’s massive portfolio, which includes Middle East peace, has been a punchline since the day he got it. More recently there has been talk of Ivanka Trump serving as ambassador to the United Nations or even head of the World Bank. She has also increasingly served as a de facto diplomat for the United States abroad. When her name was floated for the U.N. job, Trump tweeted, “everyone wants Ivanka Trump to be the new United Nations Ambassador. She would be incredible, but I can already hear the chants of Nepotism!”

The unusual power dynamics have been on display from the start, with Stephen K. Bannon losing his job after clashing with Ivanka Trump and Kushner, and Chris Christie recently pointing to Kushner as the source of his ouster from the Trump transition team. Kushner holds a major title, which would make him someone to contend with in any White House. But it wouldn’t seem a coincidence that this political neophyte has won multiple power struggles with high-ranking officials who happen to be experienced political operators. And the fact that he has can only feed the idea among other staff that they are dealing with someone in a unique position of power.

Which brings us to the fourth item: special treatment. We found out recently that Trump last year disregarded the advice of career intelligence officials who had held up Kushner’s security clearance and ordered Kelly to award him one. Those intelligence officials had worried that Kushner’s foreign business entanglements could present a security risk and that foreign governments could potentially seek leverage on him. CNN has reported Trump did the same with Ivanka Trump’s security clearance. There is no public evidence that the president has gone to such great lengths for other staffers who might have run into similar problems.

It was always unlikely that there would be one massive scandal that would put the spotlight on nepotism in the White House. Some might argue Kushner’s clearance is that scandal, but this is technically a power that a president can exercise at will.

The larger body of evidence, though, suggests concerns about nepotism were well-founded — and that Trump has done very little to guard against the problems it could create. As Trump’s presidency progresses, the inherently unique roles enjoyed by his daughter and son-in-law only become more evident.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... oblematic/

[Guest]

So, here you are indicating a belief in a deep state conspiracy. Because that’s the only possibility, right? ; )

Now, why did the current supposed non-deep state of Trump appointees ignore this yuuuuuge Biden Coverup© for the last three years, leaving it for Trump himself to clumsily attempt to prod Ukraine into manufacturing a scandal for us, in return for aid?

HUH, LoL...if you are trying to make a point, make it...I answered Tish's question.

No, you haven't. You're afraid to answer this; you just seek to dodge it, because you know that the answer won't fit your narrative.

Trump was suspicious of Biden before Biden announced his candidacy if that is what you are driving at? Make your point if you have one.

I think the point is illustrated by asking, "Why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?"

If you have proof that Trump was solely going after Biden because he was running for president, then good luck in that Rudy was sniffing around before he announced it, if that again is your point?

Why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?

It is obvious that your ducking the evidence against Biden,

Feel free to present the evidence. All you've given so far is a complaint that he made money.

... and trying to somehow ignore the corruption of the Biden's...but we will see how this folds out.

But if you have a point, make it?

Why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?

[_canpakes]

Personally, I'd like to see him on the stand because I'm confident he'd make all his Republican cross-examiners look like the idiots they really are

Between Bolton's damaging information, and the reason you give here, Republicans never intended to call witnesses. Their 'threat' to do so, were it realized, would have sunk their defense along two fronts simultaneously.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello again, Markk.

What's a narrative?

[_canpakes]

You say that he didn't get the DOJ to investigate simply because he did not need to.

If he didn't need the DOJ to investigate then why did he need to ask the Ukraine to investigate Biden and make a public announcement that they were doing so?

Because their is evidence that the Biden's are dirty, Hunter and others associated with him are getting millions for nothing, from a company owned by a "mobster" that is receipting taxpayer money from Joe Biden. There is more if you read my links.

Looks like Jersey Girl took this logically to the next step, whereas you then self-destructed in a fit of poorly-worded and nonsensical circular reasoning.

You might want to take another stab at answering the question.

[_mikwut]

canpakes,

This is what I said on page 59,

As an independent I ask. I would feel a lot better if both sides just called balls and strikes. Why don't democrats just say impeach Trump AND what the f-c-k Joe! And why aren't the Republicans saying Jesus Trump AND what the f-c-k Joe! When both sides start real integrity is where authenticity starts.

I don't say this just because it's Trump, but because it's close in time. Any democrat should be able to applaud general low employment for hell's sake. And any democrat should be appalled at the speaker of the house ripping up the speech. Any Republican should say Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host divisive dog, why give someone like that such a prestigious medal in the midst of our divisions? Those things are progress.

I have continually said on this board both sides are corrupt. It is a hot mess.

mikwut

[_Icarus]

canpakes,

This is what I said on page 59,

As an independent I ask. I would feel a lot better if both sides just called balls and strikes. Why don't democrats just say impeach Trump AND what the f-c-k Joe! And why aren't the Republicans saying Jesus Trump AND what the f-c-k Joe! When both sides start real integrity is where authenticity starts.

I don't say this just because it's Trump, but because it's close in time. Any democrat should be able to applaud general low employment for hell's sake. And any democrat should be appalled at the speaker of the house ripping up the speech. Any Republican should say Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host divisive dog, why give someone like that such a prestigious medal in the midst of our divisions? Those things are progress.

I have continually said on this board both sides are corrupt. It is a hot mess.

mikwut

The "both sides" cop out is so lame.

That's just another indirect way of using whataboutism to rationalize your untenable positions. They're not both equally corrupt and you haven't even begun to defend that thesis with hard evidence.

[_canpakes]

EAllusion, it worked perfectly well, it did not allow a partisan impeachment, just as it did with Clinton and Johnson. Iwould have worked equally well if Nixon did not resign, in that the votes were there for a bi-partisan impeachment.

Wait. You think "checks and balances" refers to a system designed to prevent partisan impeachment? That's all kinds of wrong. Partisanship as a modern phenomenon didn't exist until well after the Constitution was ratified. That arises in the Jacksonian era. Early American political parties didn't have the same machinery developed yet. Partisanship, political factionalism, as experienced in the late 1700's was something Constitutional architects were trying to avoid and warned about. They didn't want bipartisan impeachment. They wanted non-partisan impeachment administered by a non-partisan Senate. That didn't work out almost immediately after the government formed because they misjudged how politics work in a democracy. "Checks and balances" has nothing to do with any of that. That's a reference to how power is distributed among the 3 branches of the Federal government to reduce the risk of concentration of power and the communicant abuse of power that comes with it. It's meant to make democratic decision making more diffuse to make it more efficient and accountable. What Trump did is supposed to be "checked" by having the impeachment power located in Congress, but that was neutralized by partisanship.

Checks and balances failed here because the kind of corruption the President displayed, and specifically was a concern among Constitutional framers, was supposed to be stopped via impeachment because Congress would naturally want to guard its power against the power of the executive. Unfortunately, this system wasn't designed to handle a political party spanning the political branches having interests that supersede the interests of each branch. So a partisan group was able to shield a corrupt President from accountability for attacking democracy because the President belongs to their group.

Help me out here...who would you consider to be lie free...

A common question on psychological profiles asks people to agree or disagree with the statement, "I never lie." It's a test of psychopathy because people high in psychopathy measures are commonly the ones who claim to never, ever lie under any circumstances. We normally don't make a habit out of calling every person a "liar." We reserve that term for people who tell frequent and/or serious lies. Once you clear up that confusion, people like Adam Schiff absolutely are not "liars" and you only think so because you read hack sources that are literally lying to you.

"Intent of lying" ???? I have to ask you to expound on that a bit in the context of this conversation?

Some people lie to spare hurt feelings. Either people lie to get away with a string of crimes. Why they're lying tells us something about how big of a deal it is that they're doing so and whether we can trust them in other circumstances.

Anyone that has to have this explained to them should be asking themselves why they're pretending to need it explained to them.

They won't do that, of course.

[_canpakes]

Corporate boards all over the place are loaded with vanity posts held by a cabal of connected elites. It's how corporate governance actually works. I've worked for a decent sized corporation, and half the board were just people with political and personal connections and no discernible skills aside from that. They had official jobs, of course, but lol to the idea that they somehow were uniquely deserving of them.

It's fascinating to me to have this specific situation wake conservatives up and make them think this situation is unacceptable and ipso facto evidence of, if not felonious behavior, then corruption. It's everywhere.

Smashing this practice would be the dream of the most hardcore leftists, but it is so ingrained they dare not imagine it. Maybe you should vote for Elizabeth Warren Markk. Seems like your best bet to make a dent into cesspool of incestuous corporate governance through the power of the state.

viewtopic.php?p=1215004#p1215004